Lyon, 13–14 May 2015 Auditorium

Governing Council
Fifty-seventh Session
GC/57/4
30/01/2015
Lyon, 13–14 May 2015
Auditorium
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL
ON ITS FIFTY-FIRST SESSION
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Fifty-first Session of the Scientific Council (SC) of the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) was opened by Dr Cornelia Ulrich (Chairperson of the Scientific
Council), at 09:00 on Wednesday 28 January 2015. She welcomed the participants, including the
new members of the Scientific Council, Drs Stephen Chanock (USA), Ellen Kampman
(Netherlands), Ole Raaschou-Nielsen (Denmark), Martin Röösli (Switzerland) and Elisabete
Weiderpass-Vainio (Finland).
2.
She also welcomed Dr Mark Palmer (Chairperson, Governing Council), Professor Béatrice
Fervers (Chairperson, IARC Ethics Committee), Dr Andreas Ullrich (WHO Representative), and
Dr David Cox (Centre Léon Bérard – Observer).
3.
Apologies for absence were received from Drs Nuria Aragonès (Spain), Lukas Huber
(Austria), Christos Sotiriou (Belgium), Dr Julie Torode (UICC Representative – Observer) and
Dr Agnès Buzyn (Vice-Chairperson, Governing Council).
4.
For ease of reference a list of acronyms of Sections and Groups can be found in Annex 2
at the end of this Report.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
5.
Declarations were summarized by the Secretariat and made available for consultation by
all Scientific Council members during the meeting. Please refer to the Annex at the end of this
Report.
ELECTION OF RAPPORTEUR
6.
Dr Deirdre Murray was elected Rapporteur.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Document SC/51/1)
7.
The agenda was adopted.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 2
PRESENTATION OF STANDARD REPORTS: THE INTERIM ANNUAL REPORT 2014
(Document SC/51/2)
8.
The Director presented the IARC Interim Annual Report 2014 and its scientific highlights.
9.
A summary of discussions held and questions raised by the Scientific Council and answers
given by the Director or by the relevant Group/Section Head(s) are given below:
•
The SC suggested that more information is made available, particularly to new SC
members, on the areas where, for example large cohorts exist and where ongoing
research is expected and budget applied, such as the EPIC study.
•
An update was given on the HPV vaccination studies. Intermediate endpoints suggest
that single dose vaccine is promising. Modelling is used to explain differences in HPV
prevalence and vaccination efficacy across different populations.
•
A discussion took place on the premenopausal incidence of breast cancer in African
women and possible association with infections. It was suggested that infections in
breast milk or nipple aspirates could be examined as to their association with such
cancer. Ethical considerations would prohibit such additions in a current study.
•
A suggestion was made to publish a Monograph on the prevention of cancer in
response to the recent paper from Science 1. It was acknowledged that the World
Cancer Report 2 fills that gap but a suggestion was made to look at releasing a
shortened version and ensuring broader dissemination.
•
IARC was invited to provide the evidence to the World Health Organization (WHO) to
enable WHO to evaluate the HPV programme (both screening and vaccination) as a
possible best buy.
•
The SC emphasized the importance of translating cancer prevention scientific findings
into languages other than English. It was clarified that some summaries are now
translated into French and that similar arrangements exist with the Republic of Korea.
IARC is keen to work with local scientific cancer professionals in countries to translate
the documents, but are cognisant of the necessity to ensure that the translation is
accurate and valid. Members of the SC asked to suggest contacts to assist with the
translation.
10. The Scientific Council congratulated the Director and his staff on the IARC Interim Annual
Report 2014.
1
Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B (2015). Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the
number of stem cell divisions. Science 347(6217):78–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1260825
2
Stewart BW, Wild CP, editors (2014). World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon, France: International Agency for
Research on Cancer.
GC/57/4
Page 3
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
PRESENTATION OF STANDARD REPORTS: REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE
56TH SESSION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL (Document SC/51/3)
11. The Director mentioned that the full Minutes of the Governing Council meetings
(GC/56/Min.1–3) were available on the IARC Governance website (http://governance.iarc.fr/
GC/GC56/index.php).
12.
The Scientific Council noted the Report of the 56th Governing Council.
PRESENTATION OF STANDARD REPORTS: DIRECTOR’S UPDATE FROM THE
50TH SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL AND DISCUSSION (Document SC/51/4)
13.
The Director presented a written report as an update from the last Scientific Council.
14. The Scientific Council noted the Director’s Report and update from the 50th Scientific
Council.
PRESENTATION OF STANDARD REPORTS: BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE IARC ETHICS
COMMITTEE (IEC), 2013–2014 (document SC/51/5)
15.
Professor Béatrice Fervers, Chairperson of the IEC presented this item.
16. The Scientific Council queried which ethical guidelines were used when assessing a study.
The Chairperson clarified that the process is that studies require local/national ethical committee
approval in advance of submission to the IEC. The IEC then use international guidelines to
assess the study. Specific issues in specific cultures are discussed with local experts.
17. IARC clarified its role in handling any possible conflict of interest regarding the ASBEST
study and confirmed that this study is being closely monitored by the Scientific Advisory Board
and by the IEC.
18. The Scientific Council suggested that the IEC consider extending the ethical framework to
manage incidental findings to biomarker studies.
19. The Scientific Council noted the Report with satisfaction and thanked the IEC Chair for her
effort.
PRODUCTION OF STANDARD REPORTS
20. The Director would like to reduce the administrative load on the Agency’s resources
involved in the production of numerous standard reports and is seeking the Scientific Council’s
views on discontinuing the Interim Annual Report, which is resource-intensive and rarely used.
The Biennial Report (glossy book) would still be produced.
21. As other standard reports might be considered as no longer helpful or useful to either the
Scientific or the Governing Councils, it was suggested to set up a Working Group to review the
list of current standard reports and advise the Secretariat as to their possible termination.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 4
22. The Scientific Council Vice-Chair (James Bishop) as well as one Scientific Council member
(Elisabete Weiderpass-Vainio) volunteered to participate in this Working Group. The Governing
Council Chair was also requested, and accepted, to join the Working Group.
DIRECTOR’S RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWS OF THE SECTIONS OF IARC MONOGRAPHS
(IMO) AND MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY (MPA), HELD AT IARC IN JANUARY 2014
(Document SC/51/6)
23. The details of action taken following the reviews of the Sections of IARC Monographs
(IMO) and Molecular Pathology (MPA) were discussed.
24.
The Director noted with satisfaction the high overall evaluation assigned to both Sections.
25.
The Scientific Council made the following observations:
IARC Monographs (IMO)
•
The SC congratulated IARC on the re-launch of the Handbook of Cancer Prevention
Series. It stated the importance of coordinating relevant WHO publication releases
with those of IARC. The Director clarified that discussions have taken place with WHO
as to how IARC can better contribute to WHO guideline processes.
•
The SC suggested that the research time available for senior staff could be reviewed.
•
The SC stated that strategic consideration be given to the appropriate weighting of
observational studies, which can be undervalued. The difficulty of undertaking metaanalyses with a wide diversity of studies was discussed. The Section Head agreed
these meta-analyses present challenges and stated that they have considerable inhouse expertise in this area.
Molecular Pathology (MPA)
•
26.
The SC discussed the issue expressed by the Review Panel regarding the breadth of
the scope of the Section and the resources available. It was noted that this Section is
a key programme to IARC and suggested that its budget should have a sustainable
budget base. The Director replied that the Section continues to look for alternative
sources of funding. IARC has appointed a Knowledge Manager to help to maximize
the dissemination and income from digital Blue Books.
The Scientific Council accepted the Director’s response to IMO and MPA Reviews.
SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP OF SECTION REVIEW PANEL IN 2016
27. The Scientific Council discussed the Section to be reviewed in 2016: Section of Genetics
(GEN), Head: Dr Paul Brennan.
28. Review Panel (RP) members need to be identified as soon as possible to ensure a timely
process.
29. Drs John Spinelli and Nicholas Jones will participate in the GEN RP. It was agreed that
Dr John Spinelli would Chair it.
GC/57/4
Page 5
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
30. The external members should be chosen by the Secretariat in consultation with the RP
Chair and the Chair of the Scientific Council.
31.
The Review will take place at IARC on 25–26 January 2016.
THE GAMBIA HEPATITIS
(Document SC/51/7)
32.
INTERVENTION
STUDY
(GHIS):
FUTURE
PLANS
Dr Ramatoulie Njie, Group Head, presented this item.
33. Drs Spinelli and Weiderpass-Vainio, presented a review for discussion at the Scientific
Council.
34. The Scientific Council congratulated the entire research team on an important research
project. Besides initially successfully enrolling over 120 000 newborns in the trial, the Group has
continued to work within The Gambia, conducting additional important research and improving
the country’s infrastructure (particularly the National Cancer Registry) essential for success of
the study.
35. The Group Head raised the issue of the accuracy of liver diagnosis in the study in her
presentation. Experience with PROLIFICA suggests that cancer has been improperly diagnosed
in up to 18% of cases. This issue will need to be taken into consideration when undertaking
analysis.
•
The SC suggested that The Gambia project should consider joining with H3A
(The Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative, HS Africa, a research
consortium). The Group Head would welcome further collaboration with this group.
•
The SC discussed the link between research results and cancer control within The
Gambia. The Project has been very influential in devising policy within The Gambia
and cancer data is made available annually to the Ministry of Health. The success of
the vaccination study has enabled the decision to rollout the vaccination programme
nationwide.
•
Links with other hepatitis groups within WHO were discussed. The project is involved
in guideline development with WHO and also in cost effectiveness studies on
screening and treating Hepatitis B.
36. In response to the Director’s request for guidance on: a) whether the GHIS is currently on
course to complete its main objective on measuring the effects of HBV vaccination on liver
cancer, the SC replied that the study was on course.
37. In response to the Director’s request for guidance on: b) what additional actions need to
be taken to ensure success of the project, the Scientific Council replied that:
•
The non-comprehensive registration of HCC needs to be considered. A number of
actions have been taken by the Project to address the issue and further actions may
need to be taken.
•
The potential of a higher than estimated attrition rate due to the failure of linkage
methodology was discussed. The SC considered that the different options that are
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 6
ongoing – i.e. the development of an algorithm with probabilistic matching and the
testing of the use of hand and palm prints, are reasonable.
•
A question was raised regarding funding. GHIS is now included in IARC’s proposed
regular budget, 2016–2017. The Director added that this funding is reasonable but
that additional funding would be welcome.
38. In response to the Director’s request for guidance on: c) what are the main opportunities
for ancilliary studies based on the research platform present in The Gambia because of GHIS,
the SC approved the suggestions presented by Dr Njie. Other suggestions included examining
use of surrogate endpoints, renal disease and other cancers such as lymphoma.
39. The Scientific Council discussed the completion of the study and the involvement that IARC
will have in The Gambia after the study (exit strategy). It was noted that almost 10% of
Gambians are chronically infected with HBV prior to the national vaccination programme. It was
suggested that research could be undertaken on full population screening in The Gambia after
the end of the project. IARC is also interested in liver cancers other than HCC and is interested
in further opportunities to work with MRC on this and other noncommunicable disease (NCD)
outcomes following this study.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING GROUP
(ETR), 2013–2014 (Document SC/51/8)
40. Ms Anouk Berger, Group Head, presented the key achievements of ETR in 2013–2014,
based on the strategy presented and discussed during the 49th Session of the Scientific Council
in January 2013 (see document SC/49/7).
41. The Scientific Council congratulated Mrs Eve El Akroud on her retirement from the Agency
and thanks her for her great contribution in the past 35 years.
42. A question was raised on how low- and middle income countries (LMICs) scientists can
access a PhD programme in IARC. It was clarified that IARC does not award PhDs but that
collaboration is possible between local and overseas academic institutions for early stage
scientists. Several examples of such good collaboration have already occurred.
43. The Scientific Council noted that feedback from Fellows is important and recommended
that it be utilized to improve post doc experience further. It was suggested that the Early Career
Scientist Association (ECSA) could participate in the next review session.
44. It was clarified that the Fellowship Programme is a two year programme, the second year
depending on evaluation of progress. A Fellow can be further extended to four years depending
on funding from research groups.
45. The Scientific Council requested that the frequency with which the e-learning resources are
utilized be calculated. This is planned for 2015.
46. The Scientific Council noted the request for advice on potential sources of additional
funding, in order to ensure future developments in ETR. The Scientific Council agrees that there
should be sustainable methods of funding put in place.
GC/57/4
Page 7
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
47. The Scientific Council recommends to align the production of the ETR Biennial Reports to
that of the IARC Biennial Reports, i.e. that the next ETR Biennial Report should cover the years
2016–2017.
PRESENTATION OF POSTERS BY YOUNG SCIENTISTS
48. The Scientific Council congratulated the young scientists on the high quality and diversity
of their work. It thanks them for the work that was put into the posters as it helps to appreciate
more fully the work of IARC.
OTHER ISSUES
49. The Scientific Council requests that, in future Scientific Council sessions, time be made
available earlier in the agenda for discussions with the Director and the Director of
Administration and Finance.
ASSESSMENT OF THE UTILITY OF THE NEW SCORING SYSTEM FOR REVIEWS
50. After a few review cycles, it became apparent that the four point scale used for reviews
(Outstanding/Satisfactory/Questionable/Unsatisfactory) needed to be changed. A six point scale
was introduced for the reviews in 2014 and 2015 (Outstanding/Forefront/Competitive/Not
Competitive/Unsatisfactory/Preliminary Work).
51.
The Scientific Council made the following observations about the new scoring system:
•
The SC agreed that the new scale is an improvement, that it is important that the
scores are properly interpreted and that there are a sufficient number of scores in this
new scale, with appropriate intermediate scores.
•
The SC recommends that the new scoring system is maintained and will continue to
monitor and possibly include it on the agenda next year.
•
More detailed guidelines on the review process and the implementation of the scoring
system will be included in a briefing document to future RP members.
•
It is recommended that the education and collaborative components and the public
health impact of the IARC programme should be considered in the evaluation of the
Section.
•
In addition to further education on IARC’s mission, external reviewers should be
encouraged to send in their comments in writing in advance to the RP Chair for prereview session communication. It was suggested that the format of the reviews
should also be reviewed by IARC.
UPDATE ON THE “NOUVEAU CENTRE” PROJECT (document SC/51/9)
52. Since 2008, several technical reports revealed the poor state of the Tower building.
In 2012, all local partners and the Governing Council recognized that the state of the Tower’s
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 8
infrastructure was such that it would no longer be viable for continued use by the Agency within
a period of five to seven years. The City of Lyon has invested in a programme of urgent repair
works for the Tower building (ventilation, air-conditioning and heating systems) in order to
ensure occupancy for five to seven years. Presented with various potential options for long-term
continuation of IARC’s Headquarters in Lyon, the Governing Council agreed with the
recommendation made by the local authorities for a move to a newly built structure (11 060 m²
with a cost of €48.3 million) on new land for a “Nouveau Centre”.
53.
The Scientific Council made the following observations:
•
Financing is still unconfirmed by the French Government. The project will take about
five years from confirmation of finance. A new study has been commissioned to
review the current building and its viability for the next five years.
•
The SC expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the building having adverse
budgetary implications.
•
The SC recommends that the “Nouveau Centre” proceeds as quickly as possible,
because partial shut downs due to technical issues are beginning to impede scientific
activity. Facilities are a core element for scientific work and the SC expressed its
concern that the continuing uncertainty will threaten the scientific work of IARC and
the recruitment of new staff.
PURCHASE OF SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT (Document SC/51/10)
54. The Scientific Council considered the Director’s proposal to request a contribution of
496 570€ from the Governing Council Special Fund for essential scientific equipment.
55.
The following items were proposed for purchase:
a)
DNA extraction platform
Nucleic acid small volume extractor
96-channel pipetting head
b) ELISA Plate reader
c)
Vacuum concentrator
d) PCR platform
Modular high-throughput thermal cycler
Real Time detection system
Digital droplet PCR
Quantity
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
56. The Scientific Council noted that the annual maintenance costs of the requested
equipment will be covered by the regular budget as well as by collaborative programmes
through grant applications.
57. The Scientific Council made the following observations: this request appears modest and
relates to basic pieces of equipment and unequivocally recommends that the Governing Council
approves the above-mentioned purchase of scientific equipment. The mission of IARC means
that high volumes of samples from multiple countries require to be analysed and this equipment
is core to the work.
GC/57/4
Page 9
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
IARC POLICY ON OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS (Document
SC/51/11)
58. One of the pillars of IARC’s mission is to be an authoritative and unbiased “global
reference for cancer information.” Beyond ensuring quality and integrity of its publications,
however, IARC as a publicly-funded international agency recognizes its obligation to share
knowledge broadly and openly, in ways that are free of cost barriers and use restrictions.
59. With the ease and widespread acceptance of electronic scholarly communications and the
precipitously rising costs of periodicals, open access (OA) emerged as an alternative publishing
model. IARC established its OA Policy in December 2014, which describes the principles it will
adhere to in ensuring maximum access to its scientific journal articles, while minimizing cost and
use restrictions.
60. The Scientific Council recognizes that there are competing interests and challenges with
open access publishing.
61. The Scientific Council recommends a nuanced approach where papers are prioritized for
open access with an emphasis on papers that IARC identify for wide distribution. Scientists need
to be educated as to what they can and cannot do in terms of distribution.
62. The Director requested an approach to the Governing Council to use up to a maximum of
€50 000 per annum for three years from the Governing Council Special Fund to select around
20 high priority scientific articles for Gold or Hybrid OA publishing where other financing options
are unavailable.
63.
The Scientific Council approves this approach and recommends review in two years’ time.
DRAFT
IARC
MEDIUM-TERM
STRATEGY
FOR
2016–2020,
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (Document SC/51/12 + Annexes 1–3)
INCLUDING
64. The IARC Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) for 2016–2020 includes both the principles which
guide the Agency in the selection of its activities and the values which underpin that work. The
unique place and relevance of IARC is considered within the broader international landscape of
cancer research and control and the increasing political focus on noncommunicable diseases
(NCDs) following the UN resolution in September 2011.
65.
The Scientific Council considered Document SC/51/12 and its Annexes 1–3:
•
The SC enthusiastically complimented IARC on the breadth and scope of the MTS,
which has clearly benefited from the wide and transparent process of consultation
with staff, stake holders and experts.
•
The overall MTS encompasses a set of key values and principles including the
interdisciplinary nature of cancer prevention research. This is a unique strength of
IARC and essential to its mission.
•
The SC supports IARC in its key role as a trusted source of information on evidencebased cancer prevention. The SC emphasizes the importance of IARC’s role in
synthesizing and disseminating evidence on cancer prevention. It encourages IARC to
continue to provide guidance with respect to public policies on cancer prevention and
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 10
control, including when only observational studies are available. IARC is well placed to
provide policy advice on the optimal approaches towards cancer prevention research
and its implementation.
•
The SC was pleased to note the increase in the proportion of the budget that is
dedicated to Objective 3, the evaluation and implementation of cancer prevention and
control strategies.
•
The SC notes that the overall budget is likely to require an increase over time to fully
enable IARC to meet its mission.
•
Recognizing the demands on the budget, the SC endorses the cross-disciplinary
nature of the research in cancer prevention, across the spectrum of activity from
laboratory sciences to population based studies. IARC promotes descriptive
epidemiology and search for causation as being core elements of cancer prevention.
•
A key illustration of this approach is how IARC has moved from causation to
vaccination to impact of implementation of preventative strategies in cervical cancer.
The SC fully endorses this approach.
•
A key strategy is the development of good partnerships worldwide. In this context,
research on development and implementation of cancer control strategies is of
relevance. In addition, this research also can lead to extensive capacity building and
implementation at research sites.
•
IARC can have an important advisory role in assisting in the development of national
policies regarding cancer control programmes, as it does in relation to the
development of cancer registries.
•
The SC encourages IARC to continually invest in state-of-the-art Biobanking
technology. It supports IARC’s role in providing a bridge between international
initiatives and other Biobank networks. The SC fully endorses the expansion of
biobanking capabilities in the “Nouveau Centre”.
•
The SC supports the IARC’s plans for projections and modelling strategies regarding
the impact of preventative strategies. Examples include the impact of pricing on
tobacco policies and HPV vaccination.
•
The SC encourages the coordination of IARC’s activity with WHO cancer policies and
publications. However, in this conversation, it needs to be considered that most
cancer programme outcomes require follow-up much longer than a 2025 time frame.
The SC strongly endorses IARC’s role in defining and broadening the NCD strategy
with respect to cancer.
•
The SC strongly encourages the development of evidence and policy statements to
address health behaviours, particularly addressing overweight and obesity, alcohol
intake and physical exercise. The planned Handbook of Cancer Prevention will
synthesize the evidence base and IARC is encouraged to foster its dissemination.
The SC encourages IARC to participate in implementation research in this area.
GC/57/4
Page 11
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
•
The SC reiterated the importance of IARC maintaining its independence as a key
value. All projects continue to be closely vetted as to their impact on the reputation of
IARC. The SC is aware that this can limit some of the scientists in being able to access
funds.
•
The SC encourages the ongoing collaboration with France as the host country at many
levels.
•
The mainstay of the MTS evaluation should continue to be peer review, as
implemented through a variety of mechanisms including the SC review, the Section
Reviews, grant reviews and publications. In addition, the impact on public health
programmes and policies, capacity building in particular at the LMIC level should be
documented. Measurable outcomes can supplement this (e.g. publications and
downloads). It was emphasized that other less traditional methods of disseminating
information should be evaluated, for example, the use of new methodologies
developed by IARC or new datasets. The extent of collaboration and training that is
undertaken or takes place as part of research activities is also important to capture.
It was suggested that case studies could be used to illustrate some of these concepts.
•
The SC supports the role of the Communications Group at IARC. Enhancing public
understanding of the scientific message is recognized as being key to implementation
of programmes.
66. The Scientific Council recommends that the Governing Council approves the IARC MediumTerm Strategy (MTS) for 2016–2020, as presented in Document SC/51/12 and its annexes.
PROPOSED PROGRAMME AND BUDGET (2016–2017) (document SC/51/13)
67. Mr David Allen, Director of Administration and Finance presented this item and
Ms Angkana Santhiprechachit (Administration and Finance Officer) responded on further details
of the document.
68. The structure of the proposed IARC Programme and Budget 2016–2017 presents two
important changes from previous versions:
•
First, the various activities and outputs of the Agency are positioned within the
‘Project Tree’ (Information Table D) that was developed as a framework for IARC’s
overall objectives. The Project Tree provides a common structure linking the
Programme and Budget documents, the IARC Medium-Term Strategy 2016–2020
(MTS) and the associated Implementation Plan.
•
Second, the Programme and the Budget are now aligned in two year cycles.
69. Both of these changes were made to allow a clearer link between the Agency’s scientific
programme, resource allocation and overall strategy and priorities as approved by the Governing
Council (Resolutions GC/55/R11 and GC/56/R15).
70. As with the proposed programme, the presentation of the proposed budget for the
biennium 2016–2017 follows the structure set out in the newly introduced IARC Project Tree as
presented in the MTS 2016–2020. The budgetary information is displayed according to the six
main Level 2 objectives with further budget details at the Level 3 objectives in some tables.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 12
This is a fundamental change from the presentation of the prior biennial budgets that were
presented in three appropriation sections as illustrated below:
Presentation of proposed budget
2016–2017
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Presentation of prior
biennium budgets
Describe the occurrence of cancer
Appropriation Section 1 – Governing and
Scientific Councils
Understand the causes of cancer
Evaluate
and
implement
cancer
prevention and control strategies
Appropriation
Section 2
–
Scientific
Increase the capacity for cancer
Programme
research
Provide strategic leadership and enhance Appropriation Section 3 – Administrative
the impact of the Agency’s contribution
Programme
to global cancer research
Enable and support the efficient conduct
and coordination of research
71. The 2016–2017 budget is proposed to be financed exclusively from the assessments on
Participating States in order to discontinue reliance on the Governing Council Special Fund
(GCSF) for the Agency’s core budget. The overall level of the proposed budget is based on the
approved budget figures for 2014–2015 supplemented with the full contributions from Brazil and
Qatar and minimal increase from assessments on remaining Participating States. This budget
level is necessary for the Agency to absorb the portion of budget previously funded from the
GCSF and progress on priorities outlined in the MTS.
72. The budget level proposed for 2016–2017 is €43 927 213, €33 198 923 (75.58%) for
staff budget and €10 728 290 (24.42%) for non-staff budget. This staff and non-staff budget
distribution is similar to that of the 2014–2015 approved budget. More details are available in
Summary Table C and Information Table F.
73.
The Scientific Council made the following observations:
•
Inflation devalues budgets over time and needs to continue to be incorporated into
budget preparation. The Director reported on the various actions that have been
taken by IARC to try and address this issue.
•
The SC endorsed the changes in the presentation and structure of the programme
and budget and the alignment with the new IARC project tree.
•
The SC endorsed the proposed priority areas of investment.
•
The SC recommended financing the regular budget exclusively from assessments on
Participating States and recommends that the Governing Council adopts the Proposed
Programme and budget (2016–2017).
GC/57/4
Page 13
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF THE SECTION OF INFECTIONS (INF) REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION (document SC/51/WP7)
74.
The Scientific Report of the INF Review was presented by Dr Nicholas Jones, RP Chair.
75. The external advisors and Scientific Council members of the RP were thanked for their
valuable contributions.
76.
The RP noted the following concerning the INF Section:
Overall evaluation of INF
The past performance and future plans are scored independently for quality and
relevance, as follows:
a.
Assessment of INF’s scientific quality
Past
Forefront/outstanding (F/O)
Future
Forefront/outstanding (F/O)
The Review Panel was fully cognisant of the newly adopted scoring system and the rationale
that the Scientific Council had in developing a system that allowed more granularity in its
evaluation of independent programmes. The RP feel it is essential that scores given by this new
system are not directly compared to scores with the old system. It is our belief that scores of
Competitive (C) and above are truly internationally competitive and amongst the elite in their
research fields. The final score reflects the view of the RP that the overall programme had a
mixture of outstanding and forefront projects.
b.
Assessment of the relevance of INF’s work to the mission of IARC
This includes how well the proposed work benefits from IARC’s unique position, how well it
appears to fit with the IARC strategy and how it might impact on public health.
Past
Perfect fit
Future
Perfect fit
The combination of the discovery/mechanistic studies and the epidemiological studies we believe
is a real strength of this Section and should be maintained. The Review Panel were convinced
and impressed by the level of interaction and the synergy between ICB and ICE and were very
encouraged by the progress that had been made in this regard over the last five years. Some
very clear and exciting examples of interaction were given and it fully supports the future
intention of INF to maintain this breadth of approach.
The Panel was also encouraged by the efforts of INF to interact with other sections in IARC
which we judged to be strong although there are clear opportunities for these interactions to be
extended further especially interactions between INF and EDP. It believes that INF fully justifies
itself as a critical component of IARC’s mission and the support it receives.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 14
This programme will undoubtedly benefit public health through defining mechanisms of
pathogen-induced cancers and implementing strategies to better prevent, diagnose and treat
those cancers.
Overall recommendations for INF
This programme deserves support at the highest level within IARC.
77.
The overall recommendations for the INF Section were discussed and approved by SC.
78.
A discussion took place on the pros and cons of animal facilities on site.
79. It was emphasized that the biostatistical strength is an important feature of IARC and that
the Section has developed methodologies for many Sections of IARC and is leading the way. The
SC encourages further development of this discipline into the work of IARC.
80.
81.
In response, the Director:
•
Expressed his appreciation that the RP highlighted the quality of staff working in the
Section and the interaction with other Sections.
•
Reflected that the RP’s comments highlighted to him that much of the molecular work
of IARC is in fact descriptive work and consideration should be ensuring
complementary expertise in cancer biology.
•
Will give consideration to formalizing links with scientists in Lyon with access to animal
facilities.
The Section and Group Heads thanked the RP for their input.
82. The Section of Infections (INF) Review Panel Report was formally accepted by the
Scientific Council.
SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF THE SECTION OF MECHANISMS OF CARCINOGENESIS
(MCA) REVIEW AND DISCUSSION (document SC/51/WP8)
83.
The Scientific Report of the MCA Review was presented by Dr T. Rajkumar, RP Chair.
84. The external advisors and Scientific Council members of the RP were thanked for their
valuable contributions.
85.
The RP noted the following concerning the MCA Section:
Overall evaluation of MCA
The past performance and future plans are scored independently for quality and
relevance, as follows:
a.
Assessment of MCA’s scientific quality
Past performance: Competitive/Forefront (C/F)
Future plans: Competitive/Forefront (C/F)
GC/57/4
Page 15
b.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
Assessment of the relevance of MCA’s work to the mission of IARC
Past: Perfect fit
Future: Perfect fit
Overall recommendations for MCA
General conclusions for MCA:
1.
The MCA Section performs a variety of biomarker discovery projects. However, these
projects should be followed-up long term, taking the identified biomarkers forward to
other partners so that they can eventually be implemented in society. The RP advises that
this aspect of biomarker development be strengthened.
2.
Although serious efforts have taken place to fulfil the needs for bioinformatics support
(training scientists and technicians, forming a group at IARC of bioinformaticians), the RP
feels that bioinformatics support to the MCA Section should be extended. The RP advises
the addition of a P-level bioinformatician that can serve both EGE and MMB.
3.
Although the activities of both EGE and MMB have been focused considerably, the RP still
feels that more focus on continuing research lines, instead of solitary projects, is desirable.
4.
Both EGE and MMB publish well. However, the number of highest impact-factor papers
that originates from MCA is limited. Focusing on research topics, building continuing
research lines and more in depth analyses per project will increase the impact of the
published papers and increase MCA’s visibility.
The quality of the research represented in the poster presentations by the Postdocs and
students was outstanding. In addition, the discussion with the Postdocs, students and the RP
was very informative, useful and clarified some of the RP’s questions.
86. The overall recommendations for MCA were discussed and approved by the SC. The SC
welcomed the more focused direction in the Section, adding depth to its research.
87.
88.
In response, the Director:
•
Stated that MMB is a new Group within the Section and that there has been a change
in Section leadership. The Section has embraced the strategy of the Agency. This has
led to a considerable change of direction in the work being undertaken. The Director
is confident in the new leadership of the Section.
•
Noted that the RP provided some very useful technical advice on the projects that is
very welcome to the scientists.
•
Acknowledged the increasing requirement for bioinformatics capacity in this and
indeed many other Sections.
•
Noted the potential wider implications of the biomarker programme, though the
Section is focused on measuring exposure in the epidemiological context.
The Section and Group Heads thanked the RP for their input.
89. The Section of Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis (MCA) Review Panel Report was formally
accepted by the Scientific Council.
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 16
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR THE 52nd SESSION OF
THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL IN 2016
90.
Professor Jim Bishop was elected Chairperson.
91.
Professor Ellen Kampman was elected Vice-Chairperson.
DATE OF NEXT SESSION
92. Wednesday 27, Thursday 28 and Friday 29 January 2016. The GEN Review Panel will take
place on Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 January 2016.
ADOPTION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL REPORT (Document SC/51/14)
93.
The report of the Fifty-first Session of the Scientific Council was adopted.
CLOSURE OF SESSION
94.
The customary expressions of thanks were exchanged.
95. Dr Wild thanked the outgoing members of the Scientific Council, Drs Paul Dickman
(Sweden), Luca Gianni (Italy), Inger Gram (Norway), Murat Gültekin (Turkey), In-Hoo Kim
(Republic of Korea), Deirdre Murray (Ireland), Thangarajan Rajkumar (India), Sergei Tjulandin
(Russian Federation) and Neli Ulrich (Germany).
GC/57/4
Page 17
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
ANNEX 1
STATEMENT FOR THE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Declarations of interest were provided by all Scientific Council members.
Interests were declared by a minority of Council members and include:
 Research funding from and consultancy for commercial entities;
 Provision of legal expert opinion;
 Commercial interest in private companies.
The list of declared interests was made available upon request, from the Chair and the
Vice-Chair, for consultation during the meeting.
Upon review by the Secretariat none of the declared interests were considered to represent a
potential or clear conflict of interest with respect to the content of the meeting.
The individuals reporting interests were asked to check the contents of the table below, which
they all subsequently approved.
Scientific Council
member
Luca Gianni
Declared interest(s)
Advisory Board member of various commercial entities; Committee
member on a study by Sanofi Aventis
Cornelia Ulrich
Honoraria received from commercial entities for two meetings (approx.
3500€/year)
Elisabete Weiderpass
Vainio
Dr Weiderpass-Vainio’s husband is Vice-Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Alko Inc., a limited company owned by the Government of
Finland
Governing Council
Report of the 51st Scientific Council
GC/57/4
Page 18
ANNEX 2
Sections and Groups
Acronym
Full name of Section/Group
Responsible Officers
CSU
Section of CANCER SURVEILLANCE
Dr F. Bray
EDP
PRI
Section of EARLY DETECTION AND PREVENTION Dr R. Sankaranarayanan
Prevention and Implementation Group
Dr R. Herrero
QAS
SCR
Quality Assurance Group
Screening Group
Dr L. Von Karsa
Dr Sankaranarayanan
ENV
Section of ENVIRONMENT AND RADIATION
Dr J. Schüz
Deputy: Dr A. Kesminiene
GEN
BST
GCS
GEP
Section of GENETICS
Biostatistics Group
Genetic Cancer Susceptibility Group
Genetic Epidemiology Group
Dr P. Brennan
Dr G. Byrnes
Dr J. McKay
Dr P. Brennan
IMO
Section of IARC MONOGRAPHS
Dr K. Straif
Deputy: Dr D. Loomis
INF
ICB
ICE
Section of INFECTIONS
Infections and Cancer Biology Group
Infections and Cancer Epidemiology Group
Dr M. Tommasino
Dr M. Tommasino
Dr S. Franceschi
MCA
EGE
MMB
Section of MECHANISMS OF CARCINOGENESIS
Epigenetics Group
Molecular Mechanisms and Biomarkers Group
Dr Z. Herceg
Dr Z. Herceg
Dr J. Zavadil
MPA
Section of MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
Dr H. Ohgaki
NME
BMA
DEX
NEP
Section of NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
Biomarkers Group
Dietary Exposure Assessment Group
Nutritional Epidemiology Group
Dr I. Romieu
Dr A. Scalbert
Dr N. Slimani
Dr I. Romieu